1

Moderator Andrei Vollkov wrote:

Users are advised to limit their asking activity to one question a day to avoid flooding the home page with their content.

Aside of the circumstance that Volkov is surely not given to advice even anybody, not to speak that one would hardly ask, what's the matter with goining against the page owners policy to serve personal preferences?

Using an enviroment for ones living and entertaining and activily going against it's purpose and owners wishes. Grave lack of gratitude and feeling obligated? Is that what Mohayana teaches their disciples: backyard-dictatorshipism?

Does he like to give a sample of how duty and gratitude should be understood? Secret message?

BSE-Glosary:

Off-topic because… - each community decides which specific topics are and are not allowed on their site. You can see this list of off-topic subjects for this site by viewing this help center article.

This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

If you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope, consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement.

One may decide whether such is a mental, dhammic, on-topic (metta-issue) or a meta-thing and move on accordingly.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange and other worldy trades but to escape from it]

| |
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because This question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center. – Dhammadhatu Sep 11 at 7:01
  • I would give a moderator a thumb up anyway .. to review so many questions is not an easy with high level of Buddhism knowledge and what i know "true" Buddhist now become less and less. i guess it's not a paid job by the way. – little star Sep 11 at 10:16
  • Why am i seeing this? This is a meta question... Also please use a translator, this unintelligible language is not suited for public discourse imo. Perhaps if your content was intelligible you would be allowed to post more. – deadmanposting Sep 11 at 10:18
  • Moderator, seeing it's actually a meta topic, could move it there, but since actually not lokking for moderate but to domain, leaving it here to be not a serious matter. – user19738 Sep 11 at 10:40
  • 'Why am i seeing this?' = vipaka – user19738 Sep 11 at 10:45
0

We (the moderators of this site) try to implement the policies of SE, and the specific policies of this site -- there are not specifically "Mahayana" or "Theravada" rules.

We learned these policies from SE, and from this site's community -- and we evolved and practised them over the last 6 years or so -- to handle (or more usually, to allow) various normal situations and a few less usual edge-cases.

I also tried to document many of the most important policies using the tag.

Our policy about rate-limiting questions is one which I tried to explain here -- Is there a question limit, or is moderator just browbeating me?

I think that other SE sites don't normally define a limit based on the quantity of questions, but instead have policies based on quality -- i.e. a user can ask unlimited high-quality questions, but low-quality questions are closed.

The quality standard for questions on this site is different from SE's usual -- the standard here is almost non-existent, see the Moderation policies for Questions -- instead this site's community wanted to allow almost all questions. And so, moderators instead evolved a policy to limit the rate at which each user asks questions -- that's to avoid any single user's flooding the site's front/active page (flooding it with potentially low-quality questions).

As Andrei suggested, asking one question per day at most ought to be more enough (I think even two a week might be enough and not too many).

Also, you should probably know, some types of question aren't allowed at all:

  • Questions about policies and moderation of this site -- ask those here on Meta not on the main site
  • Questions (or answers or comments) intended as personal criticism or rebuke of other users -- that is not what this site is for at all, and would be edited or deleted
| |
  • Or, how about instead of, Except when quotations are requested to be listed in entirety, large panels of narrowed margin long quotes of English interpretations of Theravada texts, which are tedious and timeconsuming to try be read on smartphones, which discourages site use, try using precise citations to a lot of text & make the answers more like Answers rather than secondary homework submissions: And let people Ask Questions! which is what a q&a site ostensibly does. The present moderator Persons are knowledgeable enough to Moderate the two or three questions a day – M H Sep 23 at 10:29
  • which appear, & they are also two of the few major site Contributors; maybe it's timeconsuming to decide whether a q is 'good' or 'bad',(& which can be interpreted as being very subjective), but evaluating & maybe tweaking clarity doesn't generally take as long: especially if Other site contributors are allowed to suggest/ make edits, which is highly discouraged, but SE was set up to have include such time effective contributions by relatively lowscore members; there's lots of ambiguity too: how to encourage more site questions, while deliberately forcing reduced question contribution: – M H Sep 23 at 10:36
  • rather: how about lead by example, and if instead of failing, if the site became accessed more, there would be more interested in being moderators/ helping: cf currently, where good appropriate suggestions of edits are Harshly Rebuked and Punished!, apparently: because it would take a few seconds of a moderators time! And if such wellintentioned site contributors don't Immediately desist from inconveniently contributing helpfully to the site, their accounts are crippled/ suspended etc! Potential & new members observe this/ encounter this abuse, (& on a 'Buddhism' website!!), and leave the site – M H Sep 23 at 10:47
  • And the 'one question per day or week' Encourages Multi Part 'questions', which are less exact to answer, and make many of the 'questions' bloated; and, it isn't the fault of an Asker if they ask something which isn't easily answered by many people: that doesnot necessarly make the question Either unanswerable Or offtopic Or difficult to answer briefly(too broad etc): Maybe, it's in fact able to be answered correctly & briefly, by a contributor who actually knows the material, rather than who is trying to reply with panels of quotes: if some of the q were unanswered for a while might be ok, – M H Sep 23 at 10:57
  • & some good q without answers for a while might attract some people who understand the material well enough to provide correct accurate tailored answer to a 'difficult' question & thus contribute to the site (please see recent meta question & discussion re attracting new contributors). And the rep score indicates summed score & popularity on the site, & as such can be cumulatively subjective measure of popularity & quantity, yet notreflect actual expertise levels, & with recent low rates of site access, newer contributors won't ever reach high scores, regardless of actual expertise. Thank you – M H Sep 23 at 11:14

You must log in to answer this question.